A mate and I were in a quiet carriage in Denmark a few years ago and we were talking quietly until a lady passenger pointed to the sign and put her finger to her lips (assuming correctly that we didn't speak much Danish). It appears that the sign in the quiet carriage (stillezone) actually meant "no talking at all". Post 6 refers to a similar instance in the Netherlands. Does "quiet" mean "silent"? I think that in the UK it doesn't mean that but is generally taken to refer to mobile devices.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Avanti planning to scrap the quiet carriage?
- Thread starter WestCoastMain
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
WestCoastMain
New Member
You raise a good point that it's too easy for people to inadvertently 'end up' in the quiet carriage.
Better signage would ensure that it's not possible for anyone to be in the quiet coach without knowing.
Anyone who doesn't want to travel in peace and quiet can then choose any other part of the entire train.
So by giving customers the choice, everyone is happy.
I think the general guidance from most TOCs is that you can talk but should quiet down if requested by other passengers.
BeijingDave
Member
- Joined
- 26 Jul 2019
- Messages
- 579
The quiet carriage should be like a library otherwise it's pointless.
That's the way I treat in when I'm in one.
However, as pointed out by others, it's almost impossible for the train staff to police effectively.
That's the way I treat in when I'm in one.
However, as pointed out by others, it's almost impossible for the train staff to police effectively.
kristiang85
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jan 2018
- Messages
- 2,707
I like the Japanese way where all parts of a train are quiet. People respected each others' need for a peaceful journey. I remember it being very obvious when a British family boarded at one of my stops...
BeijingDave
Member
- Joined
- 26 Jul 2019
- Messages
- 579
A lot of them are probably sleeping. Having travelled extensively in East Asia, I am highly envious of the Asian ability to fall asleep anywhere, at any time, whether noisy or not. When you look around a flight or railway carriage in East Asian countries, at least 40% will usually be asleep.
I don't know what fosters this cultural trait. Workaholics who have to catch a nap whenever the opportunity presents itself? Relative lack of coffee compared to Westerners? (coffee certainly prevents a daytime nap)
Very unlikely. It's all moot anyway, I can't remember the last time I saw a member of rail staff on a WCML train, let alone one that would be willing to enforce any rules.
SWR have toned down their quiet carriage message. It doesn't have the picture of a mobile phone crossed out but says that some customers value a quieter space.
Commuting for years I tried to avoid quiet carriages the other carriages were pretty quiet and you could make a short phone call if required.
Once I sat in a quiet carriage home and the guard announced there was going to be major delay. The person opposite quickly called his wife for less than a minute - at which point his neighbour loudly ranted for several minutes about the ban on phones in quiet carriages. I'm glad we're moving away from complete ban. But a quieter carriage can be useful.
Commuting for years I tried to avoid quiet carriages the other carriages were pretty quiet and you could make a short phone call if required.
Once I sat in a quiet carriage home and the guard announced there was going to be major delay. The person opposite quickly called his wife for less than a minute - at which point his neighbour loudly ranted for several minutes about the ban on phones in quiet carriages. I'm glad we're moving away from complete ban. But a quieter carriage can be useful.
WestCoastMain
New Member
Yes indeed. In recent years, some of the most unpleasant journeys I've experienced have been in First Class when somebody believes a first class ticket entitles them to treat the entire carriage as their own personal office space, conducting conference or Zoom type calls with a raised voice.
Conversely, all my most enjoyable journeys have been in the standard class Quiet coach on Virgin/Avanti.
This leads me to the (no doubt controversial) view that I would be willing to pay a premium to travel in a quiet carriage.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Only when there is no other passenger in the coach is it OK. Very, very rare for that to be the case.
Think of it from the point of view of, say, a slightly built woman in a coach with a hefty, rough looking man playing music out loud*. She is likely to fear saying something (to evidence the annoyance) because he may be a threat to her. Should she have to put up with it?
Better that it is absolute. I'm not saying trains need to be like libraries, of course it is OK to talk etc, but electronic devices should always be used with headphones. Splitters are available if multiple people want to watch the same thing.
* I'm more like the latter, and once did ask a family to leave Coach A on a Virgin train because they were playing films out loud on tablets. They did leave, and I got a round of applause (ssh, that's not quiet
), but I doubt they would have been willing to challenge me were I the guilty party, for their own safety.I usually go for A because it has the best seat in the house - seat 45 - subdued lighting, aligned window and extra legroom as well as floor space for large luggage behind the row opposite, but it is nice that it's quiet, too. I would pay to select that seat, though I'm glad Trainsplit lets me for nowt.
Doesn't have to be absolutely no other passengers in the coach. There are plenty of times - early/late services - which are lightly loaded enough that there's nobody likely to be close enough to be disturbed.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
If it is in the same coach I will hear it and thus be annoyed by it. It's actually more annoying when you can only just hear it (as per leaky headphones) as the brain naturally tries to work out what it is. In this Coach A example I was in seat 45 as usual, the perps were at the table at the opposite end. It was still annoying, I could hear it even over my own headphones.
A complete ban is the best way. Don't make excuses, use headphones. It's not hard. It is never OK to play your device out in public, it is antisocial behaviour. If you're going to listen to music or watch films you need to remember your headphones unless in a private place, i.e. a place to which the public do not have access, e.g. your home, your car or a hotel room.
(I'm waiting for the classic RUK person with all of the protected characteristics to be wheeled out now...)
If it could be heard over your own headphones from the other end of the coach then that was, undoubtedly, taking the Mick.
Don't they generally get up very early in the Far East.
I don't drink coffee or tea and don't usually require a nap.
Anonymous10
Established Member
any electronic devices audio should be played at the lowest volume setting without earplugs and away from other passengers if im on a train and forget them i put my podcast on on low volume and put it to my ear. if the train gets crowded then i wouldn't keep it on at all
bussnapperwm
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 May 2014
- Messages
- 1,528
To be fair a Family Coach would be a better idea than a Quiet Coach, shove all the screaming little darlings in there
dk1
Veteran Member
XC tried that concept disastrously a few years ago. How they expected to keep them segregated on a train with as little as 3 standard class coaches still makes my mind boggle.
It's an age old problem, remember the scene in the Beatles film "A hard day's night" when they played their transistor radio to the annoyance of an entitled first class ticket holder? Later they decamped to the luggage van where their music was better appreciated! It's a right pain going on a long journey with a neighbouring passenger who can't or won't use headphones for their film or loud music, and requests to turn it down can be met with abuse. So quiet carriages can be an attractive haven for those averse to noise for whatever reason, and their loss will probably serve to discriminate against those for whom noise is disturbing for medical reasons. A retrograde step by Avanti...?
philosopher
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Sep 2015
- Messages
- 1,441
In an 9 or 11 carriage pendolino, a single family carriage I think could work. If the family carriage was the carriage closest to the first class end and consisted almost exclusively of table seats then families would most likely choose to sit in this carriage. Those without children would probably continue to the subsequent carriages when they see the family carriage is filled with potentially noisy kids.
But it’s a poor use of capacity. They wouldn’t be used on weekdays in term time, save Friday evenings, and at some times of day all year.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Other people would sit there when families didn't want it.
Oh I agree, but then the occasional family would want it.... “With hilarious consequences”
That response was the classic pretending to be a machine only capable of following rules to the absolute letter with no intuition appled at all.
It doesn't surprise me at all. Some people treat anywhere within 10 meters of their body as an extension of their home, or the visible universe extends a meter from their body, or they just don't give a toss.
A quiet coach is fine if the noise rule can be enforced. If it can't because a member of staff is afraid of getting assaulted and so won't challenge anyone, then like any rule that can't be enforced, it is pointless.
If you don't do that, you open up the unconscious bias. Businessman in a suit and tie? He gets a pass. Guy with skateboard and dreadlocks gets arrested.
The proposal was
"it should be absolute that playing any sound from an electronic device such that it is audible by others for the purposes of entertainment is an offence"
Apparently "purposes of entertainment" was important enough to include in the proposal.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
The thing I was seeking to exclude was incidental noise such as a ringtone playing for a short time (though these days most people just use vibrate), or a short alert sound. Entertainment probably wasn't the right option. Perhaps "incidental sounds such as ringtones and notification sounds played for only a short period" should be excepted instead, or somesuch. I'm sure a competent lawyer could write something suitable.
It’s a terrible idea, quite frankly. It’s right that people who want to travel in silence or get on with some work in peace should be able to choose to sit somewhere quieter. Taking that choice away from people helps nobody.
I completely agree with the sentiment but I’m not sure playing around with the wording would make any meaningful difference. There would still to be the issue of enforceability, difficult enough on trains which actually have visible staff, so a complete non starter on DOO services.
Fundamentally this kind of thing is a “social contract” issue which relies on people being considerate to those around them and expecting the same in return. Sadly showing consideration is something that’s increasingly in short supply these days - and Covid seems to have made it worse for what ever reason.
Good to know that playing the bagpipes is still okay.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I don't think there is a massive problem of bagpipes being played on trains. I have certainly never experienced it.
The point being that "playing any sound from an electronic device such that it is audible by others for the purposes of entertainment is an offence" still allows a lot of noise to be made.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
My point is that it deals with something that is a big problem while not pointlessly banning things that aren't. You'd not for example want to ban "jazz trains".
- Status